Just learned something new

[tayjaid]

According to the "experts" commentating the CWS, obstruction by the catcher on a swing is "more or less the samething as a balk. If you hit the pitch you can take that instead of the penalty". Since when can a batter actually have a hit when a balk has been called? Gotta LOVE the EXPERTS!!!

[DG]

Don't know if you are bashing announcers or asking question. Batter hits ball out of park when balk has been called, HR. Batter hits ball out of park when catcher interference has been called, HR.

[UmpJM]

tayjaid,

FED is the only rule code that has an immediate dead ball on a balk in all cases.

In this case, the announcers were correct and you're the moron.

How embarrassing. "Hoist on your own petard" by an announcer.

JM

P.S. In anything other than FED, it's (properly) called "Catcher Interference".

[tayjaid]

Yes I am a "moron". Since all I do is FED rules I was mistaken that a balk is an immediate deadball. Thank You for pointing that out. As my title says "Just learned something new"! By the way, UmpJM kindly remove the "be courteous" part from the bottom of your posts!! lol

[SAump]

Originally Posted by tayjaid

According to the "experts" commentating the CWS, obstruction by the catcher on a swing is "more or less the samething as a balk. If you hit the pitch you can take that instead of the penalty". Since when can a batter actually have a hit when a balk has been called? Gotta LOVE the EXPERTS!!!

When everybody advances at least one base.

[JR12]

Why do some on here jump all over people when they ask a question?

[JPNY25]

Originally Posted by JR12

Why do some on here jump all over people when they ask a question?

I don't think I'd say the OP was asking a question...

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by JR12

Why do some on here jump all over people when they ask a question?

While I will agree some of us can be a little "gentler" in our responses, in this case, I too interpreted the OP as being "sarcastic" when referring to the announcers as "EXPERTS." He was publicly putting the announcers down as to their lack of baseball knowledge - turns out they were right and he was wrong in this instance.

As the OP said - live and learn.

For the record - I've been wrong here once or twice too, or maybe it was ten times.

[mbyron]

Actually, I think that the OP is right to bash the announcers. Almost everything they said was wrong.

• Catchers INT is not anything similar to a balk, either on the field or in enforcement
• one is called only on F1, the other only on F2 (and don't get me started on the so-called "catcher's balk," which is misnamed)
• when CI is enforced, the batter ends up on 1B; when a balk is enforced, he ends up at the plate
• when a balk is called, the offense never, under any circumstances, has a choice about whether to take the play or enforce the balk
• with CI, the offense does indeed have a choice under some circumstances

The outcome of CI and a balk can be similar, but it's actually quite rare, since most of the time balks end up being enforced. A very slight similarity? OK. The claim that these are "more or less the same thing" strikes me as absurd.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JR12

Why do some on here jump all over people when they ask a question?

Oh, I think it's the time of year. We come home from a crap summer ball game in 90° heat where we tossed some idiot coach and his drooling brother, and then take out our crankiness on each other.

Consider it umpire therapy.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Oh, I think it's the time of year. We come home from a crap summer ball game in 90° heat where we tossed some idiot coach and his drooling brother, and then take out our crankiness on each other.

Consider it umpire therapy.

Here, here! Author! Author!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by tayjaid

According to the "experts" commentating the CWS, obstruction by the catcher on a swing is "more or less the samething as a balk. If you hit the pitch you can take that instead of the penalty". Since when can a batter actually have a hit when a balk has been called? Gotta LOVE the EXPERTS!!!

Um ... hmmm.... well, it sounds to me like you didn't learn something you should have learned. And from announcers (wow, pigs must be flying right now).

[JR12]

Originally Posted by grunewar

While I will agree some of us can be a little "gentler" in our responses, in this case, I too interpreted the OP as being "sarcastic" when referring to the announcers as "EXPERTS." He was publicly putting the announcers down as to their lack of baseball knowledge - turns out they were right and he was wrong in this instance.

As the OP said - live and learn.

For the record - I've been wrong here once or twice too, or maybe it was ten times.

I am very careful about what I post for fear of attack. I too posted something totally wrong about 2 man mechanics. I was wrong and paid dearly. I guess I deserved a little ragging, but not an all out attack!!! lol. However I always read this forum and learn all the time. Some of you guys are very knowledgable.

[UmpJM]

JR12,

Originally Posted by JR12

Why do some on here jump all over people when they ask a question?

I wouldn't know.

But when someone comes on here ridiculing someone else for their lack of rules knowledge and displays his own lack of rules knowledge while doing so, I don't see why he shouldn't get what he gave.

JM

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

JR12,



I wouldn't know.

But when someone comes on here ridiculing someone else for their lack of rules knowledge and displays his own lack of rules knowledge while doing so, I don't see why he shouldn't get what he gave.

JM

+1

(and it's happened to many of us, self included.)